In this guy's defense: He's saying that because they don't have the resources to catch all violators, when they do catch one, they need to really make an example of him and prosecute him to the full extent of the law, in order to get other people/businesses to comply voluntarily, out of fear.

Even restated, it still sounds bad, doesn't it?

In my dealings with EPA and other similar bureaucratic agencies, it's always seemed to me as though the mid-level bureaucrats weren't as concerned with obtaining voluntary compliance by setting an example, as they were with getting a little thrill up their spine with the exercise of power.

The EPA, by the way, has an annual budget (if they still passed those) of something like $10 billion, with a b.

If they paid their bureaucrats a very generous salary of $80,000 on average, they'd be able to afford an army of 125,000 of them.

In this guy's defense: He's saying that because they don't have the resources to catch all violators, when they do catch one, they need to really make an example of him and prosecute him to the full extent of the law, in order to get other people/businesses to comply voluntarily, out of fear.

Key point is that "full extent of the law" has to be grossly disproportionate to the individual violation, in order to establish the appropriate deterrent effect despite spotty enforceability. That's why he used the (entirely appropriate) analogy to crucifixion. Pour encourager les autres and all that.

I actually don't have much problem with it. It is an analogy based on the most effective method of behavior modification.

However, I do have a problem with how it has been carried out. For example, the recent case regarding EPA's bullying actions that was argued in front of the Supreme Court (and I can't believe no one has brought that up yet).

I actually don't have much problem with it. It is an analogy based on the most effective method of behavior modification.

I don't disagree, but I think a lot of people have a visceral reaction against this approach, because they have a baseline expectation that the law should conform to notions of justice and fairness -- that would imply the punishments should be proportionate to crimes, that people should be punished only for their own wrongdoing, not for others' wrongdoing, etc. In fact, our law is a regulatory regime which has nothing whatsoever to do with either justice or fairness. Instead, it is concerned with, as you point out, behaviour modification. That is, our law is designed to visit grossly disproportionate punishments on individual victims in order to calibrate a deterrent effect on unrelated third parties.

"However, I do have a problem with how it has been carried out. For example, the recent case regarding EPA's bullying actions that was argued in front of the Supreme Court (and I can't believe no one has brought that up yet)."

First thing that came to my mind. And there are other examples. When you compare the "offense" with the EPA's actions, it's appalling.

This agency really needs to be reigned in. I think Romney could profitably make this a central plank of his campaign. And Mr. Armendariz's little analogy would make a great campaign ad.

The realy problem with this analogy is that they took the first 5 GUYS they find when entering a town and crucify them. Not "dissidents". Not "possible suspects". Just the first 5 "citizens". The resulting fear obviously brought (temporary) compliance for "Pax Romania"? If this is in any way similar to how the EPA enforces compliance, then they should be put out of the regulatory business!

But that's the strategy behind all enforcement. Of any law. The authorities don't have to punish everybody who MIGHT transgress, when each punishment meted out also serves as an example to others.Which is separate, of course, from your take on EPA thugs. Or worse, obtuse minor officials with crass analogies.

The thing is, their regulations are so byzantine that it's practically impossible not to violate them somehow, no matter how careful you are. Not just the EPA, but OSHA, CMS, FTC, and all the various acronym departments, as well. Used to be, they would investigate based on a complaint. Now they do random investigations. Even when you do your best to comply, it often isn't enough. So the analogy of grabbing the first five random guys is very apt.

And yeah, they are armed. Here in Ohio, even the Pharmacy Board can bring a weapon into your office while they investigate you.

It's not the analogy that bothers me. It's the arrogance. The arrogance that it takes to feel comfortable using such an analogy in the first place, being a statement on the power this one individual wields.

If this methodology was ever needed it would be in crucifying bureaucrats for the jobs, raises and prosperity they have stolen from the American people. We'll just do 5 of them at random to send a message.

Is there any way to chain our so-called leaders to the ship of state - to the legislation they pass and sign?

That's the real problem. Who passed and signed the legislation that Dr. EPA is helping to enforce? Is this what they actually had in mind, and if not, then why was it passed? (If it was what they meant, well, then, mission Accomplished, I guess?)

It seems to me he's trying to be an efficient bureaucrat -- I can't fault him for that.

The real problem, I think, is the overwhelming number of rules and regulations the Govt inflicts on its citizenry.

I've been regulated by the EPA for decades. I've just learned to kiss their ass without thinking about it. I simply imagine them all to be Jennifer Aniston and act accordingly.

Over the years I have been forced to waste tons of money, time, and even do things that were obviously bad for the environment or dangerous to my employees, because there is no arguing with these people. They have their policies and they often can't even explain why they have them. But, if you get one little toady pissed off, you will simply end up laying off people to pay for it. It's just not worth it.

I'm a rational environmentalist. My undergraduate degree which I almost finished before changing direction was Environmental Science & Engineering. I was on a career path to hopefully work for the EPA. Reagan's rhetoric and expected budget cuts helped me decide otherwise, and I am eternally grateful.

Sorry I voted against you Ronnie. I was young and stupid, and you were right.

The EPA needs to be disbanded and all of it's employees fired. The congress creates a new agency with a much more narrowed scope and hires new employees, none of which were former EPA employees. Pour encourager les autres.

Too bad President Romney and the next Republican Congress won't do this along with host of other agencies that also need to be purged of Little Eichmann's.

Maybe. I think it more likely that bureaucracy ends up like this inevitably, even with an honorable man as president. The problem isn't the guy at the top; the problem is that the bureaucracy is answerable to no one.

INteresting that so many of the people here trying to put this in p[erspective, defend the EPA or otherwise be the voice of reason keep talking about "behavior modification" and "punishment fits the crime."

What does any of that have to do with this video? He's talking about the brutal murder of innocents ("first 5 guys they find").

Sure, it's brutal murder of innocents for a purpose (setting aside for the moment the value of that purpose), but it's still about killing innocents, not punishing law breaking.

sydney said... The thing is, their regulations are so byzantine that it's practically impossible not to violate them somehow, no matter how careful you are. Not just the EPA, but OSHA, CMS, FTC, and all the various acronym departments, as well. Used to be, they would investigate based on a complaint. Now they do random investigations. Even when you do your best to comply, it often isn't enough.

This is likely a feature, not a bug. Airline pilots used to complain that the Federal Air Regulations were so contradictory that it was impossible to make a flight without breaking at least one regulation. If anything happened, the FAA always had something to charge the pilot with. Likewise, there's a book by a civil liberties lawyer who says that the average American commits 3 felonies a day (that the title of the book). According to the author, there are thousands of federal felonies on the books. Any prosecutor can find something to charge anyone with if sufficiently motivated. Why should the bureaucracies be any different?

I don't like the EPA, but I have to admit that without it, our air and water would be in much worse shape, and it was very bad when the agency started. Here in Los Angeles the air is astoundingly cleaner compared to when I first came here 30 years ago, despite a much larger population and many more cars now. I just don't see how that would have been possible without it and it's draconian regulations.

The cost was more expensive cars and everything else as well as a great exodus of certain manufacturing jobs to the far east. Much of the pollution went there with them. Now Los Angeles gets a lot of stuff from China, it's air filtered by thousands of miles of ocean, and surviving companies are much cleaner. All things considered, I'm mostly happy with that trade off.

The thing about such an agency, is that it was formed to solve a problem, and it's success should shrink it, but it grows instead and then needs to look for, or even invent, problems to work on. That's where we are now, and the costs are far outstripping the benefits that were low hanging fruit a in the past. The agency should have the same inflation adjusted budget it did 25 years ago.

Well, les autres will be just as encouraged by punishment of the innocent as by punishment of the guilty, so long as they are made to believe there is some connection between guilt and punishment.

Actually, I think this is 180 degrees opposed from the intent. They are killed, though they are innocent, so that the others will think "My God, if they will do this to an innocent man, what will they do to the guilty" The terror, and intended effect, is magnified by the very deliberate arbitrariness of the act.

Which is why his little ugly anaology is apt: that's precisely the reaction the EPA is after.

Cntrian Crucfiction.Mathias Oh.Centurian: Nasty, eh?Mathias: Hm. Could be worse.Centurian: What do you mean 'could be worse'?Mathias: Well, you could be stabbed.Centurian: Stabbed? Takes a second. Crucifixion lasts hours. It's a slow,'orrible death.Mathias: Well, at lest it gets you out in the open air.

"I apologize to those I have offended and regret my poor choice of words,” Region 6 EPA Administrator Al Armendariz said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller. “It was an offensive and inaccurate way to portray our efforts to address potential violations of our nation’s environmental laws. I am and have always been committed to fair and vigorous enforcement of those laws. ”

garage must be feeling very giddy these days. He thinks that either Walker is about to be indicted or recalled. Also garage thinks that the people of WI are going to throw the GOP majority out and institute socialist/progressive utopia in Jan 2013 and everything will be fine. All the private sectory manufacturing jobs will magically come back!

Madison Man--I think, in general, you are correct--but I would recommend to you the late James Q Wilson's book on bureaucracy. Some bureaucratic agencies survive by maintaining a tight hold on their mission without involving expansion. Its a great read (Wilson's book) and explains much about modern bureaucracy--

One suspects this douchebag administrator is now getting a lot of "guidance" from senior administration officials. And the press people in EPA are scramblig to create a narrative. One can only imagine what his email queue looks like. Yet another unforced error by the administration.

"The thing about such an agency, is that it was formed to solve a problem, and it's success should shrink it, but it grows instead and then needs to look for, or even invent, problems to work on.""The agency should have the same inflation adjusted budget it did 25 years ago."

Well, yes, symptoms identified.

"The agency should have the same inflation adjusted budget it did 25 years ago."

Not so fast - the symptoms are apparent and have been ID'd...the only way to forever rid ourselves of these symptoms is to take the scalpel to them. There will always be hangers-on that make the case for the continuation thereof; fact is, the agencies become increasingly parasitic. There is no justification from an ROI standpoint. Beyond that they are grand political and social engineering schemes coming and going.

And they say Marines lack negotiating skills in their dealings with prosttutes....Point of order: It was the Turks (Ottomans) who conquered Byzantium (the eastern Roman capital), not other way around. This administrator will soon be evaluating the tread on Washington buses and making sure that they conform to EPA guidelines.

bagoh is right, here in southern California the air pollution situation has improved amazingly since I was a kid, when we occasionally had football practice cancelled on account of smog. But I, too, have had to deal with our own version of the Jacobins known as the California Air Resources Board, or CARB. There used to be a saying, "Those who can't do, teach." In the engineering field, it is, "Those who can't do, regulate." The sickness that has got hold of California is our need to always be one step ahead of the rest of the country. For example, I need to put a new catalytic converter in my car. I will buy the cat online and do all the work myself. There are two essentially identical versions available for my car, one for California and one for the other forty-nine states. The first is $250, the second $99. Gas stations are required to pump a special blend for my state which adds about 30 cents per gallon. Now, I am not against catalytic converters, and I am not against clean-burning fuel, but why in God's name must California have standards that are just an eensy bit higher than the benighted other forty-nine? No wonder businesses and private citizens are fleeing this state in droves, and no wonder California's finances are in the toilet.

There was a reason we called the Chief Environmental Officer at our corporation the "designated inmate."

BTW, when the Roman Governor of Britannia, Agricola, took over he marched troops up to York and Chester, terrorizing Britons as he went. Once they fell into line he did deal with them fairly. Thus sayeth Tacitus, Agricola's son-in-law.

Nathan Alexander said...I actually don't have much problem with it. It is an analogy based on the most effective method of behavior modification.

However, I do have a problem with how it has been carried out. For example, the recent case regarding EPA's bullying actions that was argued in front of the Supreme Court (and I can't believe no one has brought that up yet).

=====================Just as cutting the heads off imperialist EPA agents and sending them back to DC EPA HQ in a box with a threat to send more heads back would be a most effective act of "behavior modification".

Somehow, I think this crucifixion quote will live on in the conservative movement. And be a nice quote to dredge up when or if Republicans get power again and wish to roll back draconian EPA powers that are destroying theeconomy or property rights of owners with little or no environmental gain.

For many years I had a xerox of the first page of the first chapter of my Human Resources text book that began "In ancient times personnel practices were often crude and barbarous." I guess government procedures have not progressed.

What happened to the Roman Empire is that from the foundation of the Republic in 509 BC to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD (a total of 1,961 years) it was the longest lived state in history.

Rome was a slave state based on conquest. The slaves punished as wrong doers is unimportant. slaves punished for doing nothing wrong send ceasars messages Czars are ceasars.

Hardly. If Rome were nothing but brutal tyranny it would have speedily collapsed — as even the Athenian Empire collapsed — because Athens, despite (or perhaps because of) its democracy, couldn't resist tampering in the internal affairs of its subject peoples. Instead, as noted before, Rome lasted for ages — and it did so by, for a long, long time, allowing its constituent city-states (the fundamental elements of the Empire) a very large amount of autonomy.

“In the empire at large, Flavians and Antonines, like the better Julio-Claudians, aimed at stability in order that its inhabitants might live in security and self-respect. In this they largely succeeded. Gibbon's famous description of the 2nd century as the period when men were happiest and most prosperous is not entirely false. […]

“The empire was a vast congeries of peoples and races with differing religions, customs, and languages, and the emperors were content to let them live their own lives. Imperial policy favoured a veneer of common culture transcending ethnic differences, but there was no deliberate denationalization. Ambitious men striving for a career naturally found it helpful, if not necessary, to become Roman in bearing and conduct and perhaps even in language as well (although speakers of Greek often rose to exalted positions). But local self-government was the general rule, and neither Latin nor Roman ways were imposed on the communities composing the empire. […]

“Where possible, the emperors kept direct administration from Rome to a minimum (except perhaps in Egypt), and the 2nd century was the most flourishing period of urban civilization that the empire ever knew. […]

“It is impossible not to be impressed by the spectacle of the Roman Empire in its 2nd-century heyday, with its panorama of splendid and autonomous communities.”

Ignoring the Romans/Turks problem, is the rest of his statement even true? The Romans could certainly be cruel, but I don't ever remember reading about them summarily executing the first five citizens of a village.

The sword came out only if the locals had the temerity to revolt against Roman suzerainty.

It's also worth noting that, though the Republic and the Empire were not democratic in structure, and the Empire not even really republican (though it pretended to be so), the provincial city-states (civitates) in addition to local autonomy were free to choose their own constitutional arrangements, and though the highest prestige went to constitutions similar to that of Republican Rome, there was no compulsion for the local cities to set themselves up that way, and some chose to be highly democratic.